Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 64337 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2003 14:55:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 64278 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 14:55:00 -0000 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk (HELO killerbees.co.uk) (212.229.119.215) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 14:55:00 -0000 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 601 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:09:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: Subject: [JavaMail] J2EE Spec (Was RE: Geronimo standard Sun-API jars) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Henri wrote: > I'm currently working on a belief that J2EE implies usage of standard Sun > specs. ie) it says use JavaMail rather than have a mail option. Will read > through the J2EE spec more to be able to put a better input in. Yeah I fully expect you're right about that, I just was speculating about what added value geronimo might offer, in any case actually implementing javaMail is what is required, what would be much harder would be to re-write javaMail simply inorder to have it available under ASFL. d.